SPEECH 


HON.  LYMAN  TRUMBULL, 

OF  ILLINOIS, 

■ON 

AMENDING  THE  CONSTITUTION 
TO  PROHIBIT  SLAVERY. 


DELIVERED  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  MARCH  28,  1864, 


The  Senate  having  under  consideration  the  following  joint  resolution,  proposed  by  the 
€ommittee  on  the  Judiciary  for  amending  the  Constitution: 

M  Resolved  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America 
in  Congress  assembled ,  (two  thirds  ot  both  Houses  concurring,)  That  the  following  article  be 
proposed  to  the  Legislatures  of  the  several  States  as  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  which  when  ratified  by  three  fourths  of  said  Leislatures,  shall  be  valid,  to  all 
intents  and  purposes,  as  a  part  of  the  said  Constitution,  namely : 

Article  XIII. 

Seo  1.  Neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude,  except  as  a  punishment  for  crime,  whereoj 
the  party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted,  shall  exist  within  the  United  States,  or  any  plaee 
subject  to  their  jurisdiction 

Sec.  2.  Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce  this  article  by  appropriate  legislation.” 

Mr.  TRUMBULL  said: 

Mr.  President:  As  the  organ  of  the  Committee  on  the  Ju¬ 
diciary  which  has  reported  this  resolution  to  the  Senate,  I 
desire  to  present  briefly  some  of  the  considerations  which  in¬ 
duced  me,  at  least,  to  give  it  my  support.  It  is  a  proposition 
so  to  amend  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  as  forever 
to  prohibit  slavery  within  its  jurisdiction,  and  authorize  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  to  pass  such  laws  as  may  be 
necessary  to  carry  this  provision  into  effect. 

Without  stopping  to  inquire  into  all  the  causes  of  our 
troubles,  and  of  the  distress,  desolation,  and  death  which  have 
grown  out  of  this  atrocious  rebellion,  I  suppose  it  will  be  gen¬ 
erally  admitted  that  they  sprung  from  slavery.  If  a  large 
political  party  in  the  North  attribute  these  troubles  to  the 
impertinent  interference  of  northern  philanthopists  and  fanat¬ 
ics  with  an  institution  in  the  southern  States  with  which  they 
had  no  right  to  interfere,  I  reply,  if  there  had  been  no  such 
institution  there  could  have  been  no  such  alleged  impertinent 
interference;  if  there  had  been  no  slavery  in  the  South,  there 
could  have  been  no  abolitionists  in  the  North  to  inter¬ 
fere  with  it.  If,  upon  the  other  hand,  it  be  said  that  this  re¬ 
bellion  grew  out  of  the  attempt  on  the  part  of  those  in  the 
interest  of  slavery  to  govern  this  country  so  as  to  perpetuate 
and  increase  the  slaveliolding  power,  and  failing  in  this  that 


2 


they  have  endeavored  to  overthow  the  Government  and  set ' 
np  an  empire  of  their  own,  founded  upon  slavery  as  its  chief 
corne-stone,  I  reply,  if  there  had  been  no  slavery  there  could 
have  been  no  such  foundation  on  which  to  build.  If  the  free¬ 
dom  of  speech  and  of  the  press,  so  dear  to  freemen  everywhere, 
and  especially  cherished  in  this  time  of  war  by  a  large  party 
in  the  North  who  are  now  opposed  to  interfering  with  slavery, 
has  been  denied  us  all  our  lives  in  one.  half  of  the  States  of 
the  Union,  it  was  by  reason  of  slavery. 

If  these  Halls  have  resounded  from  our  earliest  recollections 
with  the  strifes  and  contests  of  sections,  ending  sometimes  in 
blood,  it  was  slavery  which  almost  always  occasioned  them. 
No  superficial  observer,  even,  of  our  history  North  or  South, 
or  of  any  party,  can  doubt  that  slavery  lies  at  the  bottom  of 
our  present  troubles.  Our  fathers  who  made  the  Constitution 
regarded  it  as  an  evil,  and  looked  forward  to  its  early  extinc¬ 
tion.  They  felt  the  inconsistency  of  their  position,  while  pro¬ 
claiming  the  equal  rights  of  all  to  life,  liberty,  and  happiness, 
they  denied  liberty,  happiness,  and  life  itself  to  a  whole  race, 
except  in  subordination  to  them.  It  was  impossible,  in  the 
nature  of  things,  that  a  Government  based  on  such  antagonis¬ 
tic  principles  could  permanently  and  peacefully  endure,  nor 
did  its  founders  expect  it  would.  They  looked  forward  to  the 
not  distant,  nor  as  they  supposed  uncertain  period  when  sla¬ 
very  should  be  abolished,  and  The  Government  become  in  fact, 
what  they  made  it  name,  one  securing  the  blessings  of  liberty 
to  all.  The  history  of  the  last  seventy  years  has  proved  that 
the  founders  of  the  Republic  were  mistaken  in  their  expecta¬ 
tions  ;  and  slavery,  so  far  from  gradually  disappearing  as  they 
had  anticipated,  had  so  strengthened  itself  that  in  1860  its 
advocates  demanded  the  control  of  the  nation  in  its  interests, 
failing  in  which  they  attempted  its  overthrow.  This  attempt 
brought  into  hostile  collision  the  slaveholding  aristocracy, 
who  made  the  right  to  live  by  the  toil  of  others  the  chief  ar¬ 
ticle  of  their  faith,  and  the  free  laboring  masses  of  the  North, 
who  believed  in  the  right  of  every  man  to  eat  the  bread  his 
own  hands  had  earned. 

In  the  earlier  stages  of  the  war  there  was  an  indisposition 
to  the  part  of  the  executive  authority  to  interfere  with  slavery 
at  all.  For  a  long  time  slaves  who  escaped  from  their  rebel 
owners  and  came  within  our  lines  were  driven  back.  Con¬ 
gress,  however,  at  an  early  day  took  action  upon  this  subject, 
and  at  the  very  first  session  which  met  after  the  rebellion 
broke  out,  the  special  session  of  July,  1861,  a  law  was  passed 
declaring  free  all  slaves  who  were  permitted  by  their  masters 
no  take  any  part  in  the  rebellion.  Under  the  provisions  of 
that  act,  had  it  been  efficiently  executed,  a  great  many  slaves 
must  necessarily  have  obtained  their  freedom.  The  constitu¬ 
tionality  of  the  act  would  seem  to  be  clear.  I  do  not  suppose 
that  even  my  honorable  friend  from  Kentucky  [Mr.  Davis] 


would  deny  the  proposition  that  if  we  captured  a  slave  en¬ 
gaged,  by  consent  of  his  master,  in  constructing  rebel  works 
and  fortifications,  we  might  set  him  free. 

This  act,  however,  lias  no.t  been  executed.  So  far  as  I  am 
advised  not  a  single  slave  has  been  set  at  liberty  under  it. 
Subsequently,  at  the  regular  session  of  Congress  which  con¬ 
vened  in  December,  1861,  an  act  of  a  more  comprehensive 
character  was  passed — a  law  providing  for  the  freedom  of  ail 
slaves  who  should  come  within  the  lines  of  our  armies,  who 
should  be  deserted  by  their  masters,  or  who  should  be  foufrd 
in  regions  of  country  which  had  been  occupied  by  rebel  troops 
and  afterwards  came  within  our  possession,  and  who  belonged 
to  rebel  masters.  It  is  under  the  provisions  of  this  law  that 
most  of  the  slaves  made  free  have  been  emancipated.  This 
act  also  authorized  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  or¬ 
ganize  and  employ  as  many  persons  of  African  descent  as  he 
should  think  proper  to  aid  in  the  suppression  of  the  rebellion. 
But  it  was  a  long  time  before  this  law  was  put  in  operation. 
Although  it  was  an  act  called  for  by  the  public  sentiment  of 
the  country,  and  although  it  was  the  duty  of  those  charged 
with  the  execution  of  the  laws  to  see  that  it  was  faithfully  ex¬ 
ecuted,  it  was  more  than  a  year  after  its  enactment  before  any 
considerable  number  of  persons  of  African  descent  were  or¬ 
ganized  and  armed ;  and  even  at  this  day  a  much  smaller  num¬ 
ber  are  in  the  service  than  would  have  been  by  an  efficient 
execution  of  the  law.  It  was  not  until  after  the  passage  of 
this  act  that  our  officers,  especially  in  the  West,  ceased  to 
expel  slaves  who  came  within  the  lines  of  our  army;  and  so 
persistently  was  this  practice  persevered  in  that  Congress  had 
to  interfere  by  positive  enactment,  and  declare  that  any  officer 
of  the  Army  or  Navy  who  aided  in  restoring  a  slave  to  his 
master  should  be  dismissed  from  the  public  service,  before  it 
could  be  stopped. 

But,  sir,  had  these  laws,  all  of  them,  been  efficiently  exe¬ 
cuted  they  would  not  wholly  have  extirpated  slavery.  They 
were  only  aimed  at  the  slaves  of  rebels.  Congress  never  un¬ 
dertook  to  free  the  slaves  of  royal  men  ;  no  act  has  ever  passed 
for  that  purpose. 

At  a  later  period,  the  President  by  proclamation  undertook 
to  free  the  slaves  in  certain  localities.  Notice  of  this  procla¬ 
mation  was  given  in  September,  1862,  and  it  was  to  become 
effective  in  January,  1863.  Unlike  the  acts  of  Congess,  which 
undertook  to  free  the  slaves  of  rebels  only,  and  of  such  as 
came  under  our  control,,  the  President’s  proclamation  excepted 
from  its  provisions  the  regions  of  country  subject  to  our  au¬ 
thority,  and  declared  free  the  slaves  only  who  were  in  regions 
of  country  from  which  the  authority  of  the  United  States  was 
expelled,  enjoining  upon  the  persons  proposed  to  be  made  free 
to  abstain  from  all  violence  unless  in  necessary  self-defense, 
and  recommending  them  in  all  cases,  when  allowed,  to  labor 
faithfully  for  reasonable  wages. 


4 


The  force  and  effect  of  this  proclamation  are  understood 
very  differently  by  its  advocates  and  opponents.  The  former 
insist,  that  it  is  and  was  within  the  constitutional  power  of  the 
President,  as  Commander-in-Chief,  to  issue  such  a  proclama¬ 
tion  ;  that  it  is  the  noblest  act  of  his  life  or  the  age ;  and  that 
by  virtue  of  its  provisions  all  slaves  within  the  localities  des¬ 
ignated  become  ipso  facto  free ;  while  others  declare  that  it 
was  issued  without  competent  authority,  and  has  not  and  can¬ 
not  effect  the  emancipation  of  a  single  slave.  These  latter 
insist  that  the  most  the  President  could  do,  as  commander  of 
the  armies  of  the  United  States,  would  be,  in  the  absence  of 
legislation,  to  seize  and  free  the  slaves  which  came  within 
the  control  of  the  Army ;  that  the  power  exercised  by  a  com¬ 
mander-in-chief,  as  such,  must  be  a  power  exercised  in  fact, 
and  that  beyond  his  lines  where  his  armies  cannot  go  his  or¬ 
ders  are  mere  brutum  fulmen,  and  can  neither  work  a  forfeit¬ 
ure  of  property  nor  freedom  of  slaves ;  that  the  power  of 
Fremont  and  Hunter,  commanders-in-chief  for  a  certain  time 
in  their  departments,  who  assumed  to  free  the  slaves  within 
their  respective  commands,  was  just  as  effective  within  the 
boundaries  of  their  commands  as  that  of  the  commander- in- 
Chief  of  all  the  departments,  who  as  commander  could  not 
draw  to  himself  any  of  his  presidential  powers ;  and  that  nei¬ 
ther  had  or  could  have  any  force  except  within  the  lines  and 
where  the  Army  actually  had  the  power  to  execute  the  order; 
that  to  that  extent  the  previous  acts  of  Congress  would  free 
the  slaves  of  rebels,  and  if  the  President’s  proclamation  had 
any  effect  it  would  only  be  to  free  the  slaves  of  loyal  men,  for 
which  the  laws  of  the  land  did  not  provide.  I  will  not  un¬ 
dertake  to  say  which  of  these  opinions  is  correct,  nor  is  it 
necessary  for  my  purposes  to  decide.  It  is  enough  for  me  to 
show  that  any  and  all  these  laws  and  proclamations,  giving 
to  each  the  largest  effect  claimed  by  its  friends,  are  ineffectual 
to  the  destruction  of  slavery.  The  laws  of  Congress  if  faith¬ 
fully  executed  would  leave  remaining  the  slaves  belonging  to 
loyal  masters,  which,  considering  how  many  are  held  by  chil¬ 
dren  and  females  not  engaged  in  the  rebellion,  would  be  no 
inconsiderable  number,  and  the  President’s  proclamation  ex¬ 
cepts  from  its  provisions  all  of  Delaware,  Maryland,  Kentucky, 
Tennessee,  Missouri,  and  a  good  portion  of  Louisiana  and  Vir¬ 
ginia — almost  half  the  slave  States. 

If,  then,  we  are  to  get  rid  of  the  institution,  we  must  have 
some  more  efficient  way  of  doing  it  than  by  the  proclamations 
that  have  been  issued  or  the  acts  of  Congress  which  have  been 
passed. 

Some,  however,  say  that  we  may  pass  an  act  of  Congress  to 
abolish  slavery  altogether,  and  petitions  are  sent  to  Congress 
asking  it  to  pass  such  a  law.  I  am  as  anxious  to  get  rid  of 
slavery  as  any  person  ;  but  has  Congress  authority  to  pass  such 
a  law  abolishing  slavery  everywhere,  freeing  the  slaves  of  the 
loyal,  the  slaves  of  the  friends  of  the  Government  as  well  as 


the  slaves  of  the  disloyal  and  of  the  enemies  of  the  Govern¬ 
ment.  Why,  sir,  it  has  been  an  admitted  axiom  from  the 
foundation  of  this  Government,  among  all  parties,  that  Con¬ 
gress  had  no  authority  to  interfere  with  slavery  in  the  States 
where  it  existed.  But  it  is  said  this  was  in  a  time  of  peace, 
and  we  are  now  at  war,  and  Congress  has  authority  to  carry 
.on  war,  and  carrying  on  war  may  free  the  slaves.  Why  so  ? 
Because  it  is  necessary ;  for  no  other  reason.  If  we  can  do 
it  by  act  of  Congress,  it  must  be  because  it  is  a  necessity  to 
the  prosecution  of  the  war.  We  have  authority  to  put  down 
the  enemies  of  the  country  ;  we  have  the  right  to  slay  them  in 
battle ;  we  have  authority  to  confiscate  their  property  ;  but, 
mark  you,  does  that  give  any  authority  to  slay  the  friends  of 
the  country,  to  confiscate  the  property  of  the  friends  of  the 
country,  or  to  free  the  slaves  of  the  friends  .of  the  country  ? 

But  it  is  said  that  freeing  slaves  would  aid  us  in  raising 
troops ;  that  slaves  are  unwilling  to  volunteer  and  enter  the 
public  service  unless  other  slaves  are  made  free,  and  that  we 
could  raise  troops  better,  sooner,  and  have  a  more  efficient 
army  if  slavery  were  declared  abolished.  Suppose  that  were 
so,  is  it  a  necessity?  Can  we  not  raise  an  army  without  doing 
this?  Has  not  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  unlimited 
authority  to  provide  for  the  raising  of  armies  by  draft,  by 
force  to  put  any  and  every  man  capable  of  bearing  arms  into 
its  service  ?  Have  we  not  already  passed  a  law  compelling 
men  to  enter  the  service  of  the  Government  in  its  defense  and 
for  the  putting  down  this  rebellion?  Then  there  is  no  neces¬ 
sity  to  free  the  slaves  in  order  to  raise  an  army. 

But  it  is  a  convenience,  perhaps  some  will  say.  Sir,  it  is 
not  because  a  measure  would  be  convenient  that  Congress  has 
authority  to  adopt  it.  The  measure  must  be  appropriate  and 
needful  to  carry  into  effect  some  granted  power,  or  we  have 
no  authority  to  adopt  it.  I  can  imagine  a  thousand  things  that 
would  aid  us  to  raise  troops  which  no  one  would  contend  Con¬ 
gress  had  authority  to  do.  We  now  find  that  it  is  costing  us  a 
large  sum  of  money  to  carry  on  this  war.  There  are  appre¬ 
hensions  in  some  quarters  that  the  finances  of  the  country  will 
not  be  sufficient  to  prosecute  it  to  the  end.  A  measure  that 
would  enable  us  to  carry  on  the  war  cheaper  would  certainly 
be  one  in  aid  or  this  war  power.  In  consequence  of  the  pros¬ 
perity  which  prevails  in  the  country  wages  at  this  time  are 
very  high.  Men  are  unwilling  to  enlist  without  large  boun¬ 
ties  and  large  pay,  because  they  get  high  wages  at  home. 
Suppose  we  introduce  a  bill  that  no  man  shall  be  paid  in  any 
manufacturing  establishment,  at  any  mechanic  art,  or  for  his 
daily  labor,  more  than  ten  cents  a  day,  and  we  visit  with  pen¬ 
alties  and  punishment  any  man  who  shall  give  to  his  employe 
more  than  that  sum,  do  you  not  think  that  would  hold  out 
an  additional  inducement  to  volunteer  ?  But  who  would  con¬ 
tend  that  Congress  had  any  such  authority  ?  Manifestly  it 


% 


6 


has  not.  jS  or  can  I  find  the  constitutional  authority  to  abolish 
slavery  everywhere  by  act  of  Congress  as  a  necessity  to  prose¬ 
cuting  the  war. 

Then,  sir,  in  my  judgment,  the  only  effectual  way  of  rid¬ 
ding  the  country  of  slavery,  and  so  that  it  cannot  be  resus¬ 
citated,  is  by  an  amendment  of  the  Constitution  forever  pro¬ 
hibiting  it  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States.  This 
amendment  adopted,  not  only  does  slavery  cease,  but  it  can 
never  be  re-established  by  State  authority,  or  in  any  other  way 
than  by  again  amending  the  Constitution.  Whereas,  if  slavery 
should  now  be  abolished  by  act  of  Congress  or  proclamation 
of  the  President,  assuming  that  either  has  the  power  to  do 
it,  there  is  nothing  in  the  Constitution  to  prevent  any  State 
from  re-establishing  it.  This  change  of  the  Constitution  will 
also  relieve  us  of  all  difficulty  in  the  restoration  to  the  Union 
of  the  rebel  States  when  our  brave  soldiers  shall  have  reduced 
them  to  obedience  to  the  laws. 

To  secure  its  passage  requires,  in  the  first  instance,  a  vote 
of  two-thirds  in  its  favor  in  each  branch  of  Congress,  and  its 
ratification  subsequently  by  three -fourths  of  the  States  of  the 
Union.  Can  these  majorities  be  obtained?  It  is  very  gene¬ 
rally  conceded,  I  believe,  by  men  of  all  political  parties,  that 
slavery  is  wrong  ;  and  that  its  value  to  the  master  is  destroyed 
by  the  rebellion.  What  objection,  then,  can  there  be  on  the 
part  of  any  one,  in  the  present  state  of  public  feeling  in  the 
country,  to  giving  the  people  an  opportunity  to  pass  upon 
this  question  ?  I  would  appeal  to  Senators  upon  the  opposite 
side  of  the  Chamber,  and  ask  what  objection  they  have  to  sub¬ 
mitting  this  question  to  the  people  and  letting  them  pass  upon 
it  ?  Do  any  of  you  deny  that  slavery  lies  at  the  bottom  of  this 
rebellion  ?  Do  you  believe  that  we  should  have  had  this  ter¬ 
rible  war  upon  us  had  there  been  no  slavery  in  the  land  ?  I 
trust  I  do  not  assume  too  much  when  I  assume  that  it  will  re¬ 
ceive  the  requisite  vote  of  two -thirds  of  each  branch  of  Con¬ 


gress. 

Having  obtained  that,  the  question  then  arises,  is  it  prob¬ 
able  that  it  can  have  the  ratification  of  three-fourths  of  the 
States  ?  We  have  now  thirtv-tive  States,  and  bills  have  passed 
both  branches  of  Congress  and  been  approved  by  the  Presi¬ 
dent,  for  the  creation  of  two  more,  Colorado  and  Nevada, 
which  will  make  thirty-seven.  When  these  States  are  ad¬ 
mitted,  it  will  require  the  concurring  vote  of  twenty-eight 
States  in  order  to  adopt  this  amendment. 

If  Nebraska  should  be  admitted,  for  the  admission  of  which 
a  bill  is  now  pending,  that  would  make  the  number  of  States 
thirty-eight,  and  the  votes  of  twenty-nine  States  would  then 
be  requisite  to  adopt  the  amendment.  But  the  admission  of 
Nebraska  would  not  probably  affect  the  result,  as,  if  admitted, 
she  would  most  probably  vote  for  the  amendment. 

Of  the  thirty-seven  States,  twenty-one  are  tree  States,  in- 


\7& 


I 


1 


eluding  Colorado  and  Nevada,  and  I  assume  that  all  those 
States  would  vote  tor  this  constitutional  amendment.  There 
are,  then,  the  States  of  Maryland,  West  Virginia,  Missouri, 
Arkansas,  Tennessee,  and  Louisiana,  all  of  which  have  taken 
initiary  steps  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  within  their  borders. 
Those  six  added  to  the  twenty-one  free  States  would  make 
twenty-seven.  Then  there  is  the  State  of  Delaware,  with 
hardly  slaves  enough  in  it  to  count,  which  would  be  left 
standing  alone  with  free  States  all  around  her,  and  could  not 
long  resist  a  measure  which  would  forever  give  peace  on  this 
question. 

I  have  assumed  that  all  the  free  States  will  adopt  the  amend¬ 
ment.  It  is  now  very  generally  conceded  that  slavery  is  not 
a  divine  institution.  The  few  in  the  Northern  or  free  States 
who  attempt  to  uphold  it  do  so  on  constitutional  grounds, 
denying  the  authority  of  the  Government  to  interfere  with  it ; 
but  none  of  these  persons  deny  or  can  deny  the  power  of  the 
people  to  amend  the  Constitution  in  the  mode  prescribed  by 
the  instrument  itself.  If,  then,  they  shall  oppose  an  amend¬ 
ment  for  the  abolition  of  slavery,  it  will  not  be  because  to 
abolish  it  in  that  form  is  unconstitutional,  but  because  it  is  not 
right,  or  if  right,  not  expedient.  Who  in  this  enlightened 
day  and  age  can  undertake  to  maintain  the  natural  and  ab¬ 
stract  right  of  one  man  to  hold  another  in  bondage  ;  or,  who 
in  view  of  the  desolation,  suffering,  and  death  slavery  has 
already  brought  upon  the  land,  can  think  it  expedient  longer 
to  continue  it? 

I  think,  then,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  if  this  pro¬ 
posed  amendment  passes  Congress,  it  will  within  a  year  re¬ 
ceive  the  ratification  of  the  requisite  number  of  States  to 
make  it  a  part  of  the  Constitution.  That  accomplished,  and 
we  are  forever  treed  of  this  troublesome  question.  We  ac¬ 
complish  then  what  the  statesmen  of  this  country  have  been 
struggling  to  accomplish  for  years.  We  take  this  question 
entirely  away  from  the. politics  of  the  country.  We  relieve 
Congress  of  sectional  strifes,  and,  what  is  better  than  all,  we 
restore  to  a  whole  race  that  freedom  which  is  theirs  by  the 
gift  of  God,  but  which  we  for  generations  have  wickedly 
denied  them. 

I  know  that  the  passage  of  this  measure  will  not  end  this 
rebellion.  I  do  not  claim  that  for  it.  There  is  but  one  way 
to  do  that;  and  that  is  by  the  power  of  our  brave  soldiers. 
We  can  never  have  the  Union  restored,  the  authoritv  of  the 
Constitution  recognized,  and  its  laws  obeyed  and  respected, 
until  our  armies  shall  overcome  and  vanquish  the  rebel  armies. 
We  must  look  to  our  soldiers,  to  our  patriotic  Army,  to  put 
down  the  rebellion.  But,  sir,  when  they  shall  have  accom¬ 
plished  that,  this  measure  will  secure  to  us  future  peace.  That 
is  what  I  claim  for  it.  I  trust  that  witliiu  a  year,  in  less  time 
than  it  will  take  to  make  this  constitutional  amendment  effec- 


8 


tive,  our  armies  will  have  put  to  flight  the  rebel  armies.  I  think 
it  ought  long  ago  to  have  been  done  ;  and  I  think  but  for  the 
indecision,  the  irresolution,  the  want  of  plan,  and  the  scatter¬ 
ing  of  our  forces,  it  would  have  been  done  long  ago.  Hun¬ 
dreds  of  millions  of  treasure  and  a  hundred  thousand  lives 
would  have  been  saved  had  the  power  of  this  Republic  been 
concentrated  under  one  mind  and  hurled  in  masses  upon  the 
main  rebel  armies.  This  is  wfliat  our  patriotic  soldiers  have 
wanted,  and  what  I  trust  is  now  soon  to  be  done. 

But  instead  of  looking  back  and  mourning  over  the  errors 
of  the  past,  let  us  remember  them  only  for  the  lesson  they 
teach  for  the  future.  Forgetting  the  things  which  are  past,  let 
us  press  forward  to  the  accomplishment  of  wfliat  is  before. 
We  have  at  last  placed  at  the  head  of  our  armies  a  man  in 
whom  the  country  has  confidence,  a  man  who  has  won  victo¬ 
ries  wherever  he  has  been,  and  I  trust  that  his  mind  is  to  be 
permitted  uninterfered  with  to  unite  our  forces,  never  before 
so  formidable  as  to-day,  in  one  or  two  grand  armies  and  hurl 
them  upon  the  rebel  force.  Let  him  put  to  flight  the  main 
rebel  army  which  has  threatened  the  capital  for  the  last  three 
years,  and  the  small  rebel  armies  will  quickly  succumb.  I 
look  for  that  result  during  the  coming  campaign,  and  with 
that  result,  if  we  civilians  do  our  duty,  we  shall  have  the  au¬ 
thority  of  the  Constitution  vindicated,  constitutional  liberty 
re-established,  the  Union  restored,  and  freedom  everywhere 
proclaimed. 


SPEECHES  AND  DOCUMENTS  FOR  DISTRIBUTION  BY 
THE  UNION  CONGRESSIONAL  COMMITTEE. 

Abraham  Lincoln — “Slavery  and  its  issues  indicated  by  his  Speeches,  Letters 
Messages,  and  Proclamations.” 

Hon.  Isaac  N.  Arnold — “  Reconstruction  ;  Liberty  the  corner  stone  and  Lincoln 
the  architect.”  16  pp. ;  $2  per  100. 

lion.  James  F.  Wilson — “  A  Free  Constitution.”  16  pp. ;  $2  per  100. 

Hon.  James  A.  Garfield — “  Conf  scat.ion  of  Rebel  Property.”  8  pp  ;  $1  per  100. 

Hon.  William  D.  Kelley — “  Freedmen’s  Affairs.”  8  pp.  ;  $1  per  100. 

Hon.  Green  Cla}'  Smith — “  Confiscation  of  Rebel  Property.”  S  pp. ;  St  per  500; 

Hon.  R.  C.  Schenck — “No  Compromise  with  Treason.”  8  pp. ;  Si  per  100. 

Hon.  James  Harlan — “Title  to  Property  in  Slaves.”  8  pp.  ;,$1  per  100. 

Hon.  John  C.  Ten  Eyck — “  Reconstruction  in  the  States.”  8  pp. ;  $1  per  100. 

Hon.  Reverdy  Johnson — “Amendment  to  Constitution.”  16  pp.  ;  $2  per  100. 

Biographical  Sketch  of  Andrew  Johnson,  candidate  for  the  Vice  Presidency.  16 

pp. ;  $2  per  1 00. 

Hon.  J.  D.  Defrees — “  The  War  Commenced  by  the  Rebels.”  16  pp. ;  $2  per  100. 

Hon.  Henry  G.  Stebbins — “  The  ability  of  the  Government  to  redeem  its  paper.” 
8  pp. :  $1  per  100. 

Hon.  J.  R.  Doolittle — “The  Rebels,  and  not  the  Republican  Party,  have  destroyed 
Slavery.”  8  pp. ;  §1  per  100. 

Numerous  Speeches  and  Documents  not  included  in  the  foregoing  will  be  pub¬ 
lished  for  distribution,  and  persons  willing  to  trust  the  discretion  of  the  Committee, 
can  remit  their  orders  with  the  money,  and  have  them  filled  with  the  utmost 
promptitude,  and  with  the  best  judgement  as  to  price  and  adaptation  to  the  locality 
where  the  speeches  are  to  be  sent. 


Printed  by  L.  Towers  for  the  Union  Congressional  Committee. 


